• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

What is your idea about Saudi Arabia

Scarecrow said:
I think Ahmad's point is that if you want more than one wife "legally" that is allowed in Saudi Arabia. It is also "legal" in many other countries as well...it seems that the "Christianized" areas are the ones fighting to keep it illegal...

I have always wondered...if you don't want to participate in a plural marriage you don't have to...but what right do you have to tell me I can't? Honestly...I can't logically get to the point where I understand that mentality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

On the right side a little ways down there is a list of countries and areas where polygamy is legal.

So who would hinder the spread of Authentic Christianity more

Obama claiming to be a Christian and insisting that Christians who do not have anti-Biblical values are bad people

Or an official Muslim?

Or to put it another way who helped AUTHENTIC Christianity spread more Constantine or Hadrian?

Hadrian persecuted EVERYONE who failed his test of non-christianity upon being tested and refusing to recant where as Constantine merely allowed a corrupt false Christianity to spread openly.

I think a Hadrian type environment is better to spread genuine Christianity than an Obamanation type environment is today because false Professed Christians as well as real Christians would have been equally persecuted under Hadrian where as under an Obamanation the real Christians will be punished and the false Professed Christians rewarded. But that being said, I would rather not be killed, maimed and or tortured if possible to spread the gospel without such persecution, that is I do not think persecution for doing right is good in and of itself, but doing right is good in and of itself even under persecution and if I am wrong about this may God correct me and forgive me. But Hadrian vs. Obama is much more clear cut than Hadrian vs. Constantine

By the way I am not saying that all people who profess to be Muslim persecute Christians or that Obama is or is not a Muslim

On another related question, have you noticed how Muslim countries like Yemen get so much criticism about certain marriage laws, but Westerners are ok with Japanese people having it legal to do an unethical unmarried version of the same thing, which happens to be illegal if you try to do the same thing married as far as I know. If you do not know what the same thing is I am not going to say, other than that I am not talking about polygyny in Japan.

By the way these are not totally unrelated random statements I am simply comparing different types of countries and how their laws relate to Christianity.

So..... I think even the most oppressive Muslim countries (whether oppressive in reality or only oppressive in people's imagination) are often more open to the spread of genuine Christianity than Obamanations. That being said I do not want to stereotype Muslim countries I have not been to as oppressive.
 
My religion teaches us to draw people to a better life path within a framework of love and freedom. Islam apparently teaches to enforce compliance upon punishment of stoning said:
Have you read the old testament? Loss of life and or limb was at least at one time a requirement of God and might or might not still be today (such is beyond my knowledge at the time.) Although I suspect even if it was mostly eliminated today, it would still be necessary in some cases such as defending against the mass murderers on rampages, etc.

Of course moral laws have changed throughout the history of BOTH Islam and Judeo-Christianity.

But the speed at which they changed in Islam in my opinion is much greater than in Judeo-Christianity and additionally there are other differences in how they changed, which in my opinion has more credible reasons such as the destruction of a temple, a prophesied new covenant, the existence of a new covenant before the old covenant and during the old covenant (not just after) and a new covenant being brought like a will is upon death upon the death of Christ, etc. in the case of Christianity than Islam. If I am using the phrases new and old covenant correctly.

16 In the case of a will,[d] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17 because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living.
[d] Hebrews 9:16 Same Greek word as covenant; also in verse 17
Hebrews 9:16-17 NIV 2010
 
Ahmad what are your opinions on Sharia law? Is it present in Saudi Arabia? Should it be present in Saudi Arabia, should it be present in America? What is your opinion on this matter?
 
My objection to Sharia law is that it is a religious legal system that is applied to everyone even if they do not subscribe to Islam. IF Sharia law was only applicable to believing and practicing Muslims I would have no problem with it. It is not a crime for me as a Christian to blaspheme Muhammad due to the fact that I believe he was a false prophet and "inspired" by Satan. To me it is like saying that blaspheming Jim Jones is a crime. If indeed I am wrong and I am sinning against God by blaspheming Muhammad then I will be held accountable by God for doing so; no man has the right to pass that judgment on me.
 
DiscussingTheTopic said:
My religion teaches us to draw people to a better life path within a framework of love and freedom. Islam apparently teaches to enforce compliance upon punishment of stoning said:
Have you read the old testament? Loss of life and or limb was at least at one time a requirement of God and might or might not still be today

I think it depends on whose God is dishing out the punishment. The God of the Bible is NOT the god of Islam.

Blessings,
Fairlight
 
Scarecrow said:
It is not a crime for me as a Christian to blaspheme Muhammad due to the fact that I believe he was a false prophet and "inspired" by Satan. To me it is like saying that blaspheming Jim Jones is a crime. If indeed I am wrong and I am sinning against God by blaspheming Muhammad then I will be held accountable by God for doing so; no man has the right to pass that judgment on me.

Would you afford Muslims the same right to do the same towards Christianity? How about Atheists and other non-mainstream religions ? I agree with you to some extent, but as far as I know, Islam is a religion that children are born and raised into and they haven't had the freedom adult converts have, my problem with Sharia is the idea that the strict laws can be used against people in a weaker position in society who have no choice but to follow the laws of a religion that they did not choose and considering the very harsh laws on Apostasy, they don't feel they can leave. Therefore I believe that there should be a certain standard of law that are applicable to everyone regardless of religious belief.

B
x
 
"Would you afford Muslims the same right to do the same towards Christianity? How about Atheists and other non-mainstream religions ?"

I have actually had atheists and Muslims applaud some of my comments on other forums, blogs, and areas where comments can be left about current news stories. (not that I am looking for their approval)

I have no problem with that at all, my right to free speech is no different than theirs. While many things are offensive to me I don't have the right to legally force my religious doctrine/opinions upon anyone much less tell them what they can or cannot say, think, or do...that would put me in the same category as the monogamy folks...

Something that is clearly taught in the scriptures but severely overlooked by the dominant form of "Christianity" and "Catholicism":

1 Corinthians 5:12-13 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."

::shakes head:: if only the religions (including Islam) and leaders of the world could understand these clear and simple instructions...

As I previously stated...if Sharia law ONLY pertained to those that believed in and practiced Islam you would never hear a peep from me about it...because it wouldn't apply to most people and the "innocent" Muslims that were inadvertently incorporated into the religion in situations beyond their control. But this would never be allowed because you would see a mass exodus from the religion and that would not please the powers behind the religion.
 
Thank you Scarecrow, I agree with you. :)

I do worry about the people who have been judged unfairly under Sharia criminal law but on the whole, their civil disputes to do with financial matters are not something I have a problem with.

B
x
 
One of many things I would like to study more is Sharia law. From what I have read about it many of the "laws" are no different than laws most countries already have in place. I guess it would probably be some of the "moral" laws that I might have an issue with at times - and they seem to be the news makers too.
 
Interestingly there is a doctrine we call common grace which produces natural revelation.

Then if we look at natural revelation we often find what has been labeled by legal jurists something known as natural law.

The natural law theory, which I believe is the accurate philosophical foundation for building a common grace justice system, agrees with the second table of the Law of Moses, i.e. the regulations that govern man to man relations. This is the basis to where we get both civil law and criminal law. Civil law says: "do all that you promised." Criminal law says: "do not physically damage another person or his/her property."

This too is supported by holistic evaluations of many legal/law systems. If you examine most all law codes in various countries there is a universal thread running through most of them. Most of the time the second table of the Mosaic Law code is arranged in some form or another in the legal codes.

This goes back to the idea that the law of God transcends cultures and time because it is rooted in the logic or reasoning of God himself and that logic is, as Dr. Noam Chomsky would say in language form, ingrained in all people at birth. People come wired so to speak to recognize the natural laws of the universe. As our beloved Thomas Jefferson wrote," we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights."

People are born with a predisposition to have a basic moral code of ought. In philosophy we call this the "ought principle." People of all shapes, sizes, religions, non-religious, differing countries are born with the innate idea that we have a duty or an ought principle that governs us.

I find it interesting that Dr. Gordon Clark's work called: "Logic" speaks of the term "logos," which is the Greek term for Word. In John 1:1 we find that Christ is called the "logos." Dr. Clark makes a solid point that we get from the term logos our term for logic. He then adds, Christ is the logical revelation or the logic expression of God. This is what Paul meant when he said in Christ dwelt the fullness of God. Jesus brought to us the mind and heart of God in living form in the flesh.

What and how does that apply? All moral law codes in any country can be built by the logic code. We can apply the laws of logic and look back in to the OT Mosaic Code and find applications for today per principles of the logic of God and develop a system of laws that coincides with the natural laws of the universe. We can therefore use science, reason, and non-religious terms as we build a legal system based upon natural law that reflects the God of nature.

We can build what some theologians have rightly termed a "natural theology" which is NOT applicable in the realm of personal eternal salvation but for community salvation per a legal code that delivers people from the destruction of sin.

This is where so many get confused over the Mosaic law and the Law of Christ. The Mosaic Law code was not to SAVE people from their sins in the sense of SPIRITUAL ETERNAL SALVATION. It was a code to save them from physical judgment. In other words, the Mosaic Code was a legal code that kept the people from being physically judged by God. So in one sense living by the Mosaic Code delivered one from the penalty of physical judgment. This is why the nation as a whole was by divine judgment scattered into dispersion because they did not obey the Mosaic Code.

The code in that sense can be and should be a natural guide so long as we maintain the theological divide as taught by the NT. The sword and the codes for man to man relations has been given in a form of God's love in justice to the state. They are to build in principle, not in exact form but in principle, natural laws that are logical and if logical will align with the basic laws of the second table of Moses. This sphere operates in the justice form of the code. The state makes laws that deals with the man to man relations on the physical level. These laws deal with physical salvation/deliverance. In other words, if there is a natural law and it is being enforced by the sword your obedience saves you from physical justice and wrath.

The other table of the Mosaic law, the God to man and man to God relations, comes over into the hands of the NT as a code for the body of Christ as revealed and lived by Christ and taught by the apostles. This law code goes deep into the moral heart of a person and is a spiritual code that does can only be lived out in and through the power of the Spirit. Obedience to it cannot be obtained without the Spirit. To have the internal Spirit one must embrace Christ to be spiritual and morally saved for eternity. This form of the code, a grace code, is now the law of Christ that the people of God live under.

Mistakes in this area can cause all kinds of confusion, especially in political circles. For example, Dr. Charles Hodge, a brilliant Princeton scholar who wrote one of the greatest three volume systematic theologies in the history of Christendom goofed in this area and did not see the distinction between the God to man table of the Mosaic Law and the Man to Man table of the Code. Furthermore, he tried to keep both tables together in the development of a legal code today. He failed to see the way the code was transitioned over with two different administrators, namely the church and the state. He kept the old amillennial scheme from Roman Catholicism that placed the code of the law in both and the same place. The church was to enforce both tables of the law code.

What did he advocate for then? He was consistent with his logic but just wrong in his premises. He said, if we believe the Mosaic Code applies today then we need to make federal and states laws that require everyone to attend church. If they do not attend church or if they do not follow the law of the Sabbath they need to be jailed and prosecuted.

Therefore, to avoid prosecution of people for violation of acts that are violations between God and man we must keep the natural division of the Mosaic Code with its two parts: (1) God to Man Laws (administered or enforced by the church through the Spirit realm and church discipline realm) and (2) Man to man laws, verified by natural law (administered by the state officials who enforce it with the sword).

That can do a lot for all of us in maintaining a basic common moral society in man to man relations while allowing the churches to thrive as they hammer out the God to man relations while not killing one another with the sword as they argue, which has happened to many times in our past.

Dr. Allen
 
Scarecrow said:
I have no problem with that at all, my right to free speech is no different than theirs. While many things are offensive to me I don't have the right to legally force my religious doctrine/opinions upon anyone much less tell them what they can or cannot say, think, or do...that would put me in the same category as the monogamy folks...


Good point! Something a lot of people, especially here in America, forget is that you DO NOT have the right to NOT be offended. With that being said, freedom can't exist without restraint. Like one of my high school teachers put it: My rights extend only to the tip of my fist and your rights begin at the tip of your nose and forcing the two together isn't a good match up.
 
Back
Top